Public policy issues: Earthquake prediction

1979 ◽  
Vol 69 (5) ◽  
pp. 1533-1547
Author(s):  
Marie-Elisabeth Paté ◽  
Haresh C. Shah
Keyword(s):  
San Francisco ◽  
Earthquake Prediction ◽  
Earthquake Engineering ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Risk Mitigation ◽  
Monitoring Program ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Economic Life ◽  
Prediction Program ◽  
Prediction Techniques

abstract The object of this paper is to provide a method of cost-benefit analysis of earthquake prediction as a means of mitigation of earthquake effects. The research in earthquake prediction may or may not be successful and involves an initial cost. Earthquake prediction, if achieved, on the one hand provides society with information which allows it to take protective measures. On the other hand, each prediction involves the costs of those measures and the consequent disruption of economic life. The question is to assess the value of such information in a given state of the prediction technology. The evaluation of a fault-monitoring program and its consequences for the public at the time of predictions is performed over a 50-year period. A rate of growth, a social rate of discount, and a rate of improvement over time of earthquake prediction techniques are assumed. A model “TREE” is developed; it allows computation, for each year, of the expected value of the earthquake prediction information—expected costs minus expected benefits. The life component and the dollar component of the net result are kept separate throughout the evaluation. The final result is an expected cost per life saved through the earthquake prediction program over a 50-year time period. This allows comparison with the results of earthquake engineering and building codes (see Paté, 1978). It also allows comparison with the results obtained in other public sectors involving risk mitigation—health and transportation, for example. A numerical example has been worked out for the case of the San Francisco Bay Area; it gives a first approach to the results that can be expected from a prediction system with different assumptions on the success of research in that field. This paper is based on the doctoral thesis at Stanford University of M-E. Paté, under the supervision of Professor H. C. Shah.

scholarly journals A Framework for Risk-Based Cost–Benefit Analysis for Decision Support on Hydrogeological Risks in Underground Construction

Geosciences ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
Johanna Merisalu ◽  
Jonas Sundell ◽  
Lars Rosén
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Risk Mitigation ◽  
Ground Surface ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Expert Elicitation ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Underground Construction ◽  
Groundwater Leakage ◽  
Risk Reducing

Construction below the ground surface and underneath the groundwater table is often associated with groundwater leakage and drawdowns in the surroundings which subsequently can result in a wide variety of risks. To avoid groundwater drawdown-associated damages, risk-reducing measures must often be implemented. Due to the hydrogeological system’s inherent variability and our incomplete knowledge of its conditions, the effects of risk-reducing measures cannot be fully known in advance and decisions must inevitably be made under uncertainty. When implementing risk-reducing measures there is always a trade-off between the measures’ benefits (reduced risk) and investment costs which needs to be balanced. In this paper, we present a framework for decision support on measures to mitigate hydrogeological risks in underground construction. The framework is developed in accordance with the guidelines from the International Standardization Organization (ISO) and comprises a full risk-management framework with focus on risk analysis and risk evaluation. Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) facilitates monetization of consequences and economic evaluation of risk mitigation. The framework includes probabilistic risk estimation of the entire cause–effect chain from groundwater leakage to the consequences of damage where expert elicitation is combined with data-driven and process-based methods, allowing for continuous updating when new knowledge is obtained.

scholarly journals The ALARP Principle in the Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Acceptability of Investment Risk

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 4668 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Nesticò ◽  
Shuquan He ◽  
Gianluigi De Mare ◽  
Renato Benintendi ◽  
Gabriella Maselli
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Risk Mitigation ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Investment Risk ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Mitigation Design ◽  
The Cost

The process of allocating financial resources is extremely complex—both because the selection of investments depends on multiple, and interrelated, variables, and constraints that limit the eligibility domain of the solutions, and because the feasibility of projects is influenced by risk factors. In this sense, it is essential to develop economic evaluations on a probabilistic basis. Nevertheless, for the civil engineering sector, the literature emphasizes the centrality of risk management, in order to establish interventions for risk mitigation. On the other hand, few methodologies are available to systematically compare ante and post mitigation design risk, along with the verification of the economic convenience of these actions. The aim of the paper is to demonstrate how these limits can be at least partially overcome by integrating, in the traditional Cost-Benefit Analysis schemes, the As Low as Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) logic. According to it, the risk is tolerable only if it is impossible to reduce it further or if the costs to mitigate it are disproportionate to the benefits obtainable. The research outlines the phases of an innovative protocol for managing investment risks. On the basis of a case study dealing with a project for the recovery and transformation of an ancient medieval village into a widespread-hotel, the novelty of the model consists of the characterization of acceptability and tolerability thresholds of the investment risk, as well as its ability to guarantee the triangular balance between risks, costs and benefits deriving from mitigation options.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Potential Supervised Injection Facility in San Francisco, California, USA

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 164-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amos Irwin ◽  
Ehsan Jozaghi ◽  
Ricky N. Bluthenthal ◽  
Alex H. Kral
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Local Public Health ◽  
Supervised Injection ◽  
Overdose Deaths

Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) have been shown to reduce infection, prevent overdose deaths, and increase treatment uptake. The United States is in the midst of an opioid epidemic, yet no sanctioned SIF currently operates in the United States. We estimate the economic costs and benefits of establishing a potential SIF in San Francisco using mathematical models that combine local public health data with previous research on the effects of existing SIFs. We consider potential savings from five outcomes: averted HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections, reduced skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI), averted overdose deaths, and increased medication-assisted treatment (MAT) uptake. We find that each dollar spent on a SIF would generate US$2.33 in savings, for total annual net savings of US$3.5 million for a single 13-booth SIF. Our analysis suggests that a SIF in San Francisco would not only be a cost-effective intervention but also a significant boost to the public health system.

Quantifying Risk to Optimize Facility Integrity Management

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Nemeth ◽  
Lily Li ◽  
Andrew Nielsen ◽  
Geoff Vignal
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Risk Mitigation ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Storage Condition ◽  
Pipe System ◽  
Relative Ranking ◽  
Integrity Management ◽  
Dollar Amount ◽  
The Right

Abstract Effective asset integrity management is supported through the understanding of the condition of the asset, and the quantification of the safety and uncertainty of its properties. Risk based and risk informed decision making can help operators prioritize inspections and repairs on mainline pipe, as well as within operator facilities. Setting operator system specific targets for reliability and risk can help operators better understand the condition of their system, and provide one means of determining whether integrity action or other risk treatment is required on a specific asset, either on the mainline pipe system or on a facility asset system. While mainline pipe condition is better understood through the use of inline inspection technology and non-destructive examination in the field, facility piping and storage condition is more difficult to understand due to the complexity and number of segments of assets within an operator’s facility, as well as the unpiggable nature of the majority of facility piping. To help resolve this issue, a risk quantification can be done for each segmented asset within a facility. A relative ranking of asset risks can help prioritize facility integrity activities and drive the planning and execution optimization. However, simply looking at a relative ranking of asset risks may not be enough to maximize risk reduction and achieve safety and reliability targets. This paper looks to expand on the implementation of Risk Based Inspection (RBI) standard in API 581 and explore more broadly how facility asset risk results can be used in integrity planning and decision making. The paper also examines the application of using finance principals to better quantify risk and carry out a meaningful cost benefit analysis to optimize integrity programs. Interpreting a quantified risk dollar amount is an industry challenge, and shedding light onto the value of applying reliability and risk models beyond the safety of an operator’s system can be extremely beneficial for operators to enhance cost efficiency. The quantification of risk helps support the optimization of spend and resource allocation to bring efficiencies into integrity management systems while maintaining focus on the right risk mitigation across an operator’s system.

Flood proofing measures cost-efficiency analysis for hydraulic risk mitigation in an urbanized riverine area

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ugo Ventimiglia ◽  
Giuseppe Tito Aronica ◽  
Angela Candela
Keyword(s):  
Cost Efficiency ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Risk Mitigation ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Efficiency Analysis ◽  
Flood Damage ◽  
The Real ◽  
Exposed Population ◽  
North Eastern ◽  
Structural Measures

<div> <div> <div> <p><strong>Flood proofing measures cost-efficiency analysis for hydraulic risk mitigation in an urbanized riverine area</strong></p> <p>Ugo Ventimiglia <sup>2</sup>, Angela Candela <sup>1,</sup> Giuseppe Tito Aronica <sup>2</sup></p> <p><sup>1 </sup>Department of Engineering, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy</p> <p><sup>2 </sup>Department of Engineering, University of Messina, Messina, Italy</p> <p>Use of non-structural measures for flood risk mitigation is often more economically accessible, easy to implement and are highly effective, but only if this use is supported by a detailed hydraulic analysis necessary for a correct design. Among the non-structural measures, a progressive and increasingly accentuated importance is attributed to flood proofing interventions, especially in view of the pursuit of risk resilience objectives. Flood proofing interventions are normally classified in two main types: dry flood proofing and wet flood proofing. One measure of dry flood proofing is the shielding, which consists in the use of flood barriers, which can be installed at the entrance of the buildings or at a certain distance from them in order to avoid contact with the houses and deviate the flow of water. A similar type of interventions also avoids inducing sensations of false security (levee effect) in the exposed population and therefore contributes to increasing their resilience. In the context of risk management, resilience is the intrinsic ability of a system to modify its functioning before, during and following a change or an event, so as to be able to continue the necessary operations both under expected conditions and under unexpected conditions. Aim of work presented here is to determine an optimal combination and choice between different types of structural and non-structural measures, through the development of a methodology for assessing the real effectiveness of different measures, through a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) starting from the estimate of direct flood damage. The application of the CBA, to the real case study of the Mela river, located in north-eastern Sicily, which suffered a flooding in October 2015, supported by the determination of the real damages after the flood and the modelling of the same for the alternative scenario, has returned results significant capable of affirming the ability to reduce or avoid part of the damage.</p> <p>https://drive.google.com/file/d/14dlP9Nt0A8bc4UUrv8az8pxIHp8bZ6GV/view?usp=sharing</p> <p> </p> </div> </div> </div>

scholarly journals Quantitative and Financial Aspects of Resilience Bonds in the Context of Recursive Insurance Contracts. A Cost Benefit Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-402
Author(s):  
Andrea Jonathan Pagano ◽  
Francesco Romagnoli ◽  
Emanuele Vannucci
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Risk Mitigation ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Insurance Premium ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
World Community ◽  
Catastrophe Bonds ◽  
Insurance Contracts ◽  
Climate Resilience ◽  
Heavy Damage

AbstractIt is now well known that the world community must share the risks and hazards deriving from climate change and, more generally, from the environment. At the end of summer 2019, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) issued the World’s first dedicated climate resilience bond and this confirms the thesis according to which financial, social and economic instruments are always most necessary for the development of society and to avoid that natural hazards can, as occurred in the past, cause extremely heavy damage with negative repercussions on every single area of a community. Starting from the characteristics of resilience bonds and reinsurance, the paper seeks to highlight the potential advantages that would derive from a systematic application of recursive contractual instruments (smart contracts). The authors focused on the study of the projection of financial and quantitative data of resilience and catastrophe bonds on the basis of a determined timeline, a fixed insurance premium, mitigation works related and connected to the main contract (insurance). In particular, the study concerns the correlation of the urban implementation of risk mitigation works with the specific catastrophic flood risk. The paper implements a purely economic and social cost-benefit analysis (ACB) in the sense that includes, among others, a public approach and the goal of maximizing social welfare, according to efficiency economic criteria. In a nutshell, the authors highlight as the main result not only the possibility, but also the convenience of the joint and multidisciplinary application of the quantitative method (resilience bonds) to infrastructure resilience.

scholarly journals Analysis of the Cost Effectiveness of a Suicide Barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge

Crisis ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dayna Atkins Whitmer ◽  
David Lauren Woods
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Suicide Mortality ◽  
Golden Gate ◽  
Golden Gate Bridge ◽  
The Cost

Background: The Golden Gate Bridge (GGB) is a well-known “suicide magnet” and the site of approximately 30 suicides per year. Recently, a suicide barrier was approved to prevent further suicides. Aims: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of the proposed suicide barrier, we compared the proposed costs of the barrier over a 20-year period ($51.6 million) to estimated reductions in mortality. Method: We reviewed San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge suicides over a 70-year period (1936–2006). We assumed that all suicides prevented by the barrier would attempt suicide with alternative methods and estimated the mortality reduction based on the difference in lethality between GGB jumps and other suicide methods. Cost/benefit analyses utilized estimates of value of statistical life (VSL) used in highway projects. Results: GGB suicides occur at a rate of approximately 30 per year, with a lethality of 98%. Jumping from other structures has an average lethality of 47%. Assuming that unsuccessful suicides eventually committed suicide at previously reported (12–13%) rates, approximately 286 lives would be saved over a 20-year period at an average cost/life of approximately $180,419 i.e., roughly 6% of US Department of Transportation minimal VSL estimate ($3.2 million). Conclusions: Cost-benefit analysis suggests that a suicide barrier on the GGB would result in a highly cost-effective reduction in suicide mortality in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Future challenges to asset investment in the UK water industry: the wastewater asset investment risk mitigation offered by minimising principal operating cost risks

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. J. Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Risk Mitigation ◽  
Operating Cost ◽  
Price Volatility ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Water Industry ◽  
Capital Costs ◽  
Practice Approach ◽  
The Uk

This paper defines challenges currently facing the water industry globally that will affect water industry asset investment and development now and in the near future. Those challenges include energy price volatility, climate change regulation, asset capital costs and strategic resource considerations. This paper presents potential answers to these challenges in the context of the UK water industry and described a methodology developed to assess them and provide accurate cost-benefit analysis. A best practice approach which allows sustainable investment to offer water utilities operational efficiency benefits, including cost benefits, is described and the critical elements of the best practice developed by the author identified.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document